April 25, 2006

Surely this will bring down those gasoline prices, right? Prices are just about at $3 for regular here in Philadelphia.

From the AP:

Easing the environment rules will allow refiners greater flexibility in providing oil supplies since they will not have to use certain additives such as ethanol to meet clean air standards. The suspension of oil purchases for the federal emergency oil reserve is likely to have only modest impact since relative little extra oil will be involved.
...
The president said Democrats in the past have urged higher taxes on fuel and price caps to control fuel expenses, but he said neither approach works. Instead, he called for increased conservation, an expansion of domestic production and increased use of alternative fuels like ethanol.

Did you just do a double take too? Ethanol good? Ethanol bad? Grrrr. Hulk smash!

But for real, we have some ridiculous problems here. And Bush has his take on them:

Bush said that high gasoline prices are like a hidden tax on consumers and businesses, although he said the nation's economy was strong. He urged Congress to take back some of the billions of dollars in tax incentives it gave energy companies, saying that with record profits, they don't need the breaks. He urged lawmakers to expand tax breaks for the purchase of fuel-efficient hybrid automobiles.

A hidden tax on the community, indeedy. That tax is being collected in the Veep's pockets. The economy is strong like steamd bok choi [hint hint]. Urged Congress to take back tax incentives he and his Veep pushed through?! Expand tax breaks for hybrids? How about taking away tax breaks for Hummers too.

What are your suggestions taking a longer term look at things than this myopic BushCo?

April 24, 2006

That's the headline of an article in today's Daily News. I'm in it. It's about the young progressive movement going on here in Philly. And if you actually buy the paper for 60¢, you'll be treated to a pic of me, Hannah and Chris. Puzzling why Philly.com doesn't post all the photos that make it into the paper, maybe that's just the premium for the paper version. Aside from my own ego pumping, there is some juicy stuff in there.

Chris noted how we've come across quite a bit of pushback

We have received significant and very disturbing pushbacks from city committee... It's extremely counterproductive when you consider that a vast majority of what we're doing is challenging for seats where no one is doing anything.

Lucey [the writer] asked Congressman Bob Brady, the Philadelphia Democratic party chairman, about the pushback and he had this to say:

I'm not aware of it, nor am I concerned about it... Everybody has the right to run.

That's really funny. REALLY FUCKING FUNNY. Why? Because I remember being passed a few letters via a friend. One of them from the desk of Bob Brady, on Philadelphia Democratic Executive Committee letterhead and all that stated:

It has come to my attention that there is an organized effort to file petitions to become a Democratic committee person in many wards in the city. It is clear that this effort has been started by forces that seek to polarize and destroy this party. I strongly urge you to oppose their efforts. I suggest that you immediately notify me at City Committee of the divisions where this has occurred. I will have the petition reviewed to determine if it is defective. If it is, I will assist you in filing a petition with the Common Pleas Court to have the person stricken from the ballot on behalf of your designated candidate in that division.

We are a family united. As your leader and friend, I will fight to make sure we remain united.

I will also prepare withdrawal slips for these individuals that filed and I will try to have them withdrawn.

Does he not recall the letter he wrote and signed on March 8, 2005? It's shit like this that makes Hannah's words ring so true:

The Democratic Party will wither and die unless active people get involved.

I know of much nastier stuff going on than a simple letter.

And the ending of the story is just priceless with a quote from Terry Gillen, 30th ward leader. She sent out a letter of her own in defense of the sitting committeepeople which said, in part:

I wanted to pass along a letter from the Chairman of our Democratic Party, Bob Brady. He is concerned that many committeeperson throughout the City are being challenged by outsiders who are trying to created division within the Democratic Party and within some of our wards and divisions. I personally believe that some of the people who are doing this are working hand in hand with the republican [sic] Party.

This week, some committeepeople may receive a notice that their petition is being challenged in court. If you receive this notice, let me assure you that Bob and I and the Democratic Party will go to court and fight to make sure that you can run for reelection. Democratic Party lawyers will argue your case for free in order to keep your name on the ballot. We will do this because we all need to stick together and fight these people who want to divide us.

Let me know as soon as soon as possible if you receive a legal challenge of if you believe that someone is trying to remove your name from the ballot.

If we stick together we can stay strong. We won't play into the Republicans' hands and allow anyone to divide us!

The story ended with this:

What I hope doesn't happen is you have people knocking off longtime committeepeople and then dropping out in two years because it's boring.

It seems that she has failed to notice how her us are the ones who are now bored with the job and not doing a thing now. That's why we're running. The Party is broken here in Philadelphia. It is rotting from the inside out. I'm proud to say that I'm part of the fresh blood that wants to gut this rotting tree and plant a new forest of progressive change.

To think that people running for committeeperson are doing it for shits and giggles and aren't really committed to the job is such fucking bullshit. Who wants to take on another job wich pays nothing; takes up a good chunk of time in election cycles; is the first contact from the private citizens; and did I mention this is basically a volunteer gig which pays nothing? Committeepeople are almost a free customer service department for the city. Don't like the pothole on your block? Walk up to your committeeperson in the grocery store and tell them. A stop sign fall down? Knock on your committeeperson's door and tell them. Need help trying to get a cutout in a sidewalk? Let your committeeperson know and s/he'll send it up the ladder. What crazy fucks want that job? Crazy fucks like me. And crazy fucks like me have more crazy friends who are also running. Thank you everyone who is are committed to and running for change: Chris, Danie, Sabra, Marc, Stephanie, Andrea, Robin, Hannah, Sam...

I found this article in Monday's NY Times very interesting for a couple of reasons. First off, it deals with the hot button social issue of embryonic stem cell research. Secondly, given the recent coverage of the NYT of the PA senate race where they basically say Bob Casey will get the nod even with staunch opposition from within his own party; this stem cell article doesn't bring up Casey's position on embryonic stem cell research. It's the same as BushCo.

I support the current federal policy on embryonic stem cell research and would oppose the Castle bill to expand federal support of embryonic stem cell research... As a U.S. Senator, I will strongly support funding for stem cell research that doesn't destroy an embryo. [Ignatius Insight 7.29.05]

Unfortunately, Bob doesn't seem to be aware that embryonic stem cell research is the future and those embryos have to be destroyed. Also, the embryos that are to be worked on have already been discarded and will be destroyed anyways.

Some more reporting on the Castle bill here from 7.29.05 by the same reporter as this newer article.

Human embryonic stem cells are considered by scientists to be the building blocks of a new field of regenerative medicine. The cells, extracted from human embryos, have the potential to grow into any type of tissue in the body, and advocates for patients believe they hold the potential for treatments and cures for a range of diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's disease.

But the cells cannot be obtained without destroying human embryos, which opponents of the research say is tantamount to murder. "An embryo is nascent human life," Mr. Frist says in his speech, adding: "This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It's a fact of science."

On Aug. 9, 2001, in the first prime-time speech of his presidency, Mr. Bush struck a compromise: he said the government would pay only for research on stem cell colonies, or lines, created by that date, so that the work would involve only those embryos "where the life or death decision has already been made."

The House-passed bill would expand that policy by allowing research on stem cell lines extracted from frozen embryos, left over from fertility treatments, that would otherwise be discarded. Mr. Castle has said he believes the bill meets the president's guidelines because the couples creating the embryos have made the decision to destroy them.

Today's story focuses on the potential using of the issue of embryonic stem cell research as a new wedge issue.

Democrats are pressing their support for embryonic stem cell research in Congressional races around the country, seeking to move back to center stage an issue they believe resonates with voters and to exploit a division between conservatives who oppose the science and other Republicans more open to it.

The question of whether the government should support or limit stem cell research has cropped up in Senate races in Maryland and Missouri, and in House races in California, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin, especially in suburban swing districts.

I let out a laugh as Pennsylvania was listed in the House races and left off the Senate list. In what the NY Times has already started to highlight [here and here] as one of the most important Senate races to get back majority in Congress, the issue that Dems are supposed to be using as a new wedge issue is moot.

This is the first real wedge issue Democrats have had with Republicans

says Jennifer E. Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. The first real wedge issue and what has Sen. Chuck Schumer done? Kissed it goodbye here in PA. Schumer promissed his Congressional colleagues that while this guy was pretty far Right, he'd never back extremist SCOTUS nominees, but then Bob goes out and says he'd vote to confirm both John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Oh, and he said he would've also voted to go to war in Iraq and doesn't feel a need to withdraw anytime soon. Let's not even touch on the whole anti-universal healthcare, anti-living wage, anti-choice thing. This candidate Casey is just a shitty choice who just falls short everywhere except for having a dad who was the governor, a popular one at that.

And then there's the candidate I'm volunteering more and more hours every week, Chuck Pennacchio. On the issues, he's a knight in shining armor compared to Bob. Chuck is pro-choice, pro-universal healthcare, pro-embryonic stem cell research, anti-war, anti-extremist SCOTUS appointments, pro-balanced budget amendment, pro-living wage, wants to renew the assault weapons ban... The list just goes on and on and you can read more about his stances on the issues here.

There's only one choice for me in the primary and that's Chuck Pennacchio. A Casey victory would push back the progressive movement six years [his full Senate term]. It would plant another Zell Miller / Joe Lieberman in the Dem side of the aisle undercutting the efforts of the entire party and being BushCo's new favorite Dem lapdog. This guy can't be trusted to vote for a Democratic Senate Majority Leader.

April 23, 2006

Dear Mr. President
Come take a walk with me
Let's pretend we're just two people and
You're not better than me
I'd like to ask you some questions if we can speak honestly

What do you feel when you see all the homeless on the street
Who do you pray for at night before you go to sleep
What do you feel when you look in the mirror
Are you proud

How do you sleep while the rest of us cry
How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye
How do you walk with your head held high
Can you even look me in the eye
And tell me why

Dear Mr. President
Were you a lonely boy
Are you a lonely boy
Are you a lonely boy
How can you say
No child is left behind
We're not dumb and we're not blind
They're all sitting in your cells
While you pay the road to hell

What kind of father would take his own daughter's rights away
And what kind of father might hate his own daughter if she were gay
I can only imagine what the first lady has to say
You've come a long way from whiskey and cocaine

How do you sleep while the rest of us cry
How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye
How do you walk with your head held high
Can you even look me in the eye

Let me tell you bout hard work
Minimum wage with a baby on the way
Let me tell you bout hard work
Rebuilding your house after the bombs took them away
Let me tell you bout hard work
Building a bed out of a cardboard box
Let me tell you bout hard work
Hard work
Hard work
You don't know nothing bout hard work
Hard work
Hard work
Oh

How do you sleep at night
How do you walk with your head held high
Dear Mr. President
You'd never take a walk with me
Would you

April 20, 2006

In their closing statements, the candidates had this to say... Alan said that he tells the truth and doesn't exaggerage and stresses his record as a pension lawyer as proof of his desire to fight for Pennsylvanians. Chuck listed his thirty-three years of coalition building, grassroots organizing and experience on the Hill and in previous winning Senate campaigns. He called on PA voters to bring him to DC because right now, the Dems need a "voice of conscience" in DC. Chuck said that we are experiencing crises right now, but on the flip side of crisis is opportunity and we have the opportunity now to effect change. Bob humbly asked for the vote in the primary [I don't think Schumer and Rendell would know humble if it was dropped on them via a 50 megaton payload]. He seemed stunned at the crowd's overwhelming response to Alan and Chuck's words and seemed worried, but maybe it was the eye makeup he was wearing.

After it was all over, many in the crowd made their way to the stage to speak with the candidates. Chuck was swarmed before he could leave the stage and was talking to the people while crouching down. He's pictured above hugging a supporter from the stage with cameras clicking behind them. We didn't get out of there for a solid half hour. We headed across campus to Ben's Underground to meet with some of the college Democrats for an afterparty. About twenty of us had some yummy greasy food and Oreo cookie milkshakes and discussed the debate, what there is to do between now and May 16th and what greasy foods to get seconds of. We finally headed home on the turnpike back to Center City around 11p.

It was great to get out Lancaster again to see the gang from my trip out there last month after St. Patrick's Day. They're an incredibly enthusiastic and well organized group out there. It was great to sit and watch the debate live and in the flesh. You take a lot more in than via the television, the crowd plays a large part in framing the feel of the debate and the crowd was very receptive to the Progressive message Chuck put forth. I wish they'd have another debate, this time in the Philly area, so that more people could see them all live. But Bob refuses to agree to do so.

I'll be volunteering tons of hours between now and May 16th for the Pennacchio campaign and I am sure that he will defeat Man on Dog in the general election. If anyone would like to get involved, please hit me with an email.

Oooh, and I almost forgot, I got to meet Carrie Budoff, the Inky writer covering this race along with other PA politicos. It's always cool to meet people whose writing you read. Catherine Lucey of the DN was there too, but I didn't know who she was. Meeting Will Bunch of the DN and Dan Rubin of the Inky give an added dimension to their writing. I've been approached at several events, last at the immigration rally, by people who somehow recognize me [there are like 2500 posts on this thing with maybe 5 of them with a photo of me]. I wonder what their first impressions are. I'd guess: "He's much shorter in person and curses like you dropped a 16lbs bowling ball on his big toe."

The issue of lobbyist/special interest money came up on several occassions within the context of several questions, but mainly in the sixth question which addressed earmarking of bills and lobbying money. Bob said that the system is broken and that things being earmarked in larger bills [I think this is also called "paperclipping"] deserve the same light of day as the full bill itself. He said that "sunshine is the best disinfectant" and I actually agree with him on that [stop the presses, what time is it?] Unfortunately, he has no problem with taking special interest money and doesn't seem to think that taking money from the same donors as Man on Dog is a problem. Alan is opposed to overnight earmarks and brought up last year's PA pay raise scandal which happened, duh, overnight. He called out Bob for signing all of those checks [he's the PA Treasurer] which were all unconstitutional. Alan stated that he is against lobbyist money, but accepts money from some PACs, but does not have a specific calculus as to which he'd accept money from and which he would turn down money from. Chuck is the only PAC free and special interest money free candidate in the race and agreed with Alan that Bob the illegal pay raises were bad for all Pennsylvanians. He called out Alan for selling out his position on the issue of parental notification/consent to special interests. In an August interview with PoliticsPhilly.com, Alan stated that he was for limited parental notification and consent.

The ninth question addressed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and whether or not we should withdraw immidately in accordance with the plan Rep. John Murtha (PA-12) put forth and the tenth question asked who were the most serious nuclear threats in the world. Bob said he was against immediate withdrawal and blamed BushCo for lying to get into the war and Man on Dog for being all frothy at the mouth over the war. Bob would have voted for the war with the information at the time and now feels that we need to finish the job since we're there. He called for an independent senator with no ties to big oil to lead; none of the candidates take money from big oil. Bob stated that the US government must leave all options on the table with Iran and North Korea, the two most dangerous nuclear threats. He said that there should be negotiations first, but that the military and The Bomb should still be used as leverage in the end, as BushCo currently feels. Alan favors the Murtha plan and adds that it does not call for an immidate withdrawal as in tomorrow the troops come home, but over a matter of months [I think he said six to nine months]. He said that by the end of 2006, the US troops should be limited to border patrol and redeployment in hot spots. He echoed the Bush categorization of North Korea and Iran as charter members of the Axis of Evil and that coalitions are needed to talk to them as the US cannot do it alone.

Chuck started off by asking his fellow candidates to call for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to a round of applause from the crowd. It was at this point [about seventy-five minutes into the debate] that a Casey supporter [he had on a sticker] behind me said to the person sitting next to him "[Chuck] is making all the right points" to which I grinned. Chuck also agrees with the Murtha plan; he's been calling for a withdrawal since June of 2005. Chuck also favors redeployment in hot spots. Chuck also listed North Korea and Iran as the most dangerous nuclear threats, but stressed that threats of nuclear force is not the way to go. He called for the US to embrace a nuclear non-proliferation treaty and lead by example. He called North Korea the source of the world's loose nukes and stressed that a dialogue must be opened up with Iran as they are currently years away from developing nuclear bomb making capabilities [a Right wing lie!].

The twelfth and final question asked the candidates why they would make a better senator than Man on Dog. Bob listed the 181K jobs lost in PA since 2001 and the 17K who lost health insurance since 2001 [but Bob's expanded healthcare plan addresses child healthcare coverage and not universal coverage as Chuck and Alan espouse and recently the CEO of GlaxsoSmithKline endorsed and called financially feasable]. Alan started off by saying that living in the state of PA would be a start. He cited ties to lobbyist money and big oil by Man on Dog. Chuck reiterated his true independence from special interest money as the PAC free and lobbyist free candidate - the only candidate not beholden to anybody but his constituents. He called Man on Dog an absentee landlord and a preacher of bigotry through hate.

All three candidates wore suits this time, I guess Casey got the memo that Thurston Howell attire of a navy blazer and khakis is not appropriate for a fucking Senate debate. However, he did not get the memo that he has a huge unibrow. Sorry, but it's just there, I couldn't stop myself from gawking. It's just as distracting as Peter Gallagher's pair of caterpillars, but not as heavy, but only one continuous line. The opening statements started off with Chuck Pennacchio who corrected the moderator's pronunciation of his name. She was saying it with a soft "ch" sound as in "change" instead of the hard "cc" as in the end sound of "clock". She said she was told to not pronounce it like "Pinocchio" to which Chuck quipped back, "No, I'm not Pinocchio, that's the other guy [Sen. Man on Dog]" to a round of laughter from the crowd. Chuck got the center podium, he looked very comfortable even though he was a little under the weather.

Bob started off by saying that he wanted to earn our votes. This is quite different than the Rendell-Reid-Schumer triangle of "VOTE FOR HIM OR WE WILL KILL YOU" method they've been playing to date. I can't think of a single thing that Casey has done on the campaign trail to earn a single vote other than declare himself a Democrat. He came out for the nominations of SCOTUS nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He said that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. He said that we should stay the course in Iraq and keep the nuclear option on the table for Iran. He turned down numerous opportunities to debate in the Philly metro area, home of a third of the voters in the state... If that's "earning" a vote, then I should've "earned" a raise of $1M since I go to work everyday and work. Hearing him live in person for the first time definitely showed me just how boring he is. His voice is upper nasaly and he sounds like he's got a mute on, his voice is muffled. Anyone who has taken a public speaking 101 class or speech class in high school or, say, watched TV every knows that you can't just talk in a monotonous voice. It just puts people to sleep. Casey's good at that; putting people to sleep with his "stances" and when you add in his delivery, you've got Candidate NyQuil.

Alan sounded particulary whiny tonight. Which is better than his normal monotonous tone. Nice guy, I've met and spoken to/with him several times, just not a lively guy. He was much livelier tonight though jumping on Casey for not wanting to rebroadcast the debate to make it more available and for not wanting to debate again in Philadelphia and Harrisburg; he got a round of applause for that, we all wanted more debates.

The debate was moderated by NBC local affiliate WGAL8 co-anchor Janelle Stelson [pictured above speaking with Chuck after the debate] who brought some personality to the moderator position. She was more than a person just reading questions. During the opening statments, she quipped in with a little personal comment to each candidate and interjected between questions with follow ups outside of the alotted time when appropriate.

The first question of the night asked the candidates what their first three pieces of legislation would be. Alan was up first and stressed addressing the problem of global warming to which he said that Congresses in the past had passed up crucial opportunities to help the environment; pensions, with too many corporations getting through too many loopholes in escaping payments; elderly working program where people sixty-three and older, if they were to choose to stay in the workforce, would receive untaxed wages/salaries as long as they made under $30K. Chuck stressed universal healthcare to save $163 Billion by eliminating the overhead from private insurers; bilateral trade allowing fair trade instead of free trade and addressing the immigration issue; a living wage, he noted that 25% of Americans and Pennsylvanians are working and still in poverty and concurrently implementing a progressive tax on the top 2% having them pay 50% in taxes - under Ike, the tax rate on the same 2% was above 90% and that tax base helped establish the US as an economic superpower. Bob wanted early childhood education for four-year-olds; fiscal discipline; ethics reform where he railed on Sen. Man on Dog [speaking of ethics, Bob takes money from the same people as Man on Dog].

The fifth question of the night addressed Supreme Court (SCOTUS) appointments and whether or not one should have a test to determine how one should vote for a nominee and whether or not a filibuster is a proper procedural measure. Chuck started off by saying that the partisanship in the nomination process has been largely Republican as they have control of all three branches of government, they're the ones driving the partisanship. He noted that it was a sham to watch his Democratic colleagues "question" the recent SCOTUS nominees Roberts and Alito and that they took the non-answers as answers. He stressed that he would never ask for permission to filibuster from his Democratic collegues; he would simply filibuster and he would've filibustered the Alito nomination. Bob said that he is against getting rid of the filibuster completely, but that he felt that Alito's testimony was truthful and straightforward. Was he watching the same hearing as I was? He said that there should not exist a litmus test, but a consideration of a nominee's character, experience, judicial temperment and judicial philosophy. I'd say that Alito's a pretty shitty choice based on that, but then again, it seems as if we watched different hearings. Alan had been sounding more and more like he was advertising his firm than simply relating issues to him being a practicing pension lawyer running a small business. He asked about the individual litmus tests on choice, civil rights, labor, environment, womens rights - Alito fails all of those litmus tests [touché!].

The debate itself was great. But there were stupid rules. Like not being able to take any audio, video or still photography unless you were a credentialed reporter. Fuck you too. I went inside the building carrying a heavy box of Chuck Pennacchio brochures in my hands with my camera bag over one shoulder and my camera across my chest. Two cops stop me and tell me that I can't bring my camera into the debate. I tell them I'll put it away later. They give me a look as if they want me to put it away right in front of them. And then I say that I can't, you know, with this heavy box of stuff in my hands and all. Whatever. And I put the box down and lay out the brochures on the table and people start grabbing them up as quickly as I'm putting out another stack. I head down the hallway to the gymnasium to get a good seat before they're all taken and I'm stopped again, looks like a PR person. She asks if I'm a member of the press [I still hadn't put away my camera because I wanted to get inside quickly]. For a moment there, I think about lying about it to give myself unfettered access all arond the debate floor. But, I didn't, and told her I'd put my camera away as I got to my seat [which I did].

There is an additional rule against using the official debate footage. The campaigns were not to use any of the video footage from the debate of their opponents [or even snippets of themselves?]. PCN talkshow host and professor at Franklin & Marshall [the host of the debate] Terry Madonna had this to say:

"We didn't want this forum in an academic environment to be used by the campaigns," Madonna said. "We are not in the business of helping people win or lose elections."

Now what kind of bullshit is that? What the hell is the fucking point of a debate if you can't show it to the public? While the debate will be re-aired on Lancaster's NBC affiliate in a couple weeks in two parts and perhaps nationally via CSPAN [sweet], it's not easy to get people to sit down and watch almost two hours of debate. Back and forth exchanges on an issue here and there are more effective methinks. But what the hell do I know, I'm not the one pulling strings behind the scenes like Madonna. His hair seemed weirdly dark to me, sorta like he used some of that spary hair stuff, anybody else notice that?

So, I don't have any photos of the debate. I did reel off a bunch afterwards though once the debate was technically over.

There are already three good play by play liveblogs of the debate, so I won't go into every detail. From Politics Philly, Above Average Jane [who watched the first hour] and Factesque who even adds her own in-line color [awesome] commentary while live blogging; eRobin must be one quick typer.

The AP reported that the crowd was about 500 people attended the debate. There was a walkway above the debate floor where the candidates walked along before the debate. I'm assuming they met upstairs to go over the ground rules and draw for the order of opening/closing statements and the order of questioning. First to walk to the doorway leading behind the stage floor was Bob Casey. A round of "Casey" chants came up from the crowd. Closely behind was Alan Sandals who got some shrieks from the crowd. The same person [or few people] kept on shrieking through the debate. It was such an annoying hi-pitched shriek. A few seconds after Alan was Chuck. The crowd wasn't reacting at first, but then he hit the halfwaypoint to the door and then we all went wild. A huge contingient [more than I had met earlier and more than I had anticipated] got up to a roaring standing applause. He held up his fist in the air to us as he rounded the corner to the door. We kept cheering for another few seconds. The people on the floor with their Casey stickers on looked absolutely stunned at our enthusiasm. I really think they were shocked at the response Chuck got, fuckers never knew what hit 'em.